With current debates on how firms are strategically modifying their appropriability regime and impact value creation has on value appropriation. Does Teece appropriability concept (1986) based on its seminar work still relevant?
- Innovators find positive conditions for capturing the rents of their innovations and imitators lack of opportunities to copy these innovations in a fast and cost-efficient way.
- Appropriability regimes mainly depend on the strength of patent protection, the value of lead-time advantages, and the conditions for maintaining trade secrets.
https://www.uni-hohenheim.de/fileadmin/einrichtungen/interman/Discussion_Papers/Gredel_Gresse_colalborative_rd_materials.pdf
- Innovators find positive conditions for capturing the rents of their innovations and imitators lack of opportunities to copy these innovations in a fast and cost-efficient way.
- Appropriability regimes mainly depend on the strength of patent protection, the value of lead-time advantages, and the conditions for maintaining trade secrets.
https://www.uni-hohenheim.de/fileadmin/einrichtungen/interman/Discussion_Papers/Gredel_Gresse_colalborative_rd_materials.pdf
Good question difficult to answer, but there is a way to address to it. Starting with the observation of Google: they claim specificities in helping people to learn. Learning itself has dimensions that can be rent generating or rent dissipating.
You must study Schumpeter's creative destruction and the theory of economic development to understand more about this.
I've an article in Planning Theory recently that addresses tangentially to this line of inquiry--emphasizing how Schumpeter and Coase can "meet" in an institutional approach context. Teece's approach is a branch out of Coase.
The topic is still relevant but the discussion has largely moved to the topics of governance of IPR, open innovation and above all to business model Innovation where value creation, proposition and capture (or sharing) are core issues.
Even more crucial is the distinction made by Teece between competences and capabilities; see the paper attached.
Regards,
MV
Interesting dichotomy between Coase and Schumpeter. Coase stresses the firm and its actions in internalizing costs while Schumpeter is better known for his humanized "entrepreneur" as an agent of innovation. Competencies may be more appropriately connected to Schumpeterian rent capture; while capabilities, which tend to connote "capacity" seems more appropriate in a Coasian context.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Econ
- Innovation Economics